The Government’s proposed reforms to zero-hours and low-hours contracts have sparked considerable debate.
Supporters see them as a long-overdue improvement to workers’ rights.
Critics fear they could reduce the flexibility that many businesses—and indeed many workers—rely upon.
As with many employment law changes, I don’t believe the answer is black and white.
What is actually changing?
The Employment Rights Act introduces reforms aimed at reducing what the Government calls “one-sided flexibility.”
Although zero-hours contracts are not being banned, workers on qualifying zero-hours and low-hours contracts are expected to gain several important rights during 2027, including:
- The right to be offered guaranteed hours that reflect the hours they regularly work.
- Greater notice of shifts.
- Compensation where shifts are cancelled, moved or shortened at short notice.
The objective is simple: if someone regularly works predictable hours, their contract should better reflect that reality.
Why many people support these reforms
It’s easy to understand why these changes have received strong support.
For workers, greater certainty can mean:
- More predictable income.
- Better financial planning.
- Greater work-life balance.
- Less stress caused by cancelled shifts.
Nobody should consistently work the same pattern while remaining uncertain about their earnings each week.
In that respect, the reforms address a genuine issue.
But is the picture really that simple?
This is where I think the debate becomes more interesting.
During my HR career, I’ve worked with businesses where operational demand changes almost daily.
Take hospitality.
A sunny weekend, a wedding, a sporting event or a conference can dramatically increase staffing requirements overnight.
The following week, demand may fall just as quickly.
That flexibility isn’t always about reducing costs.
Often, it’s about matching staffing levels to customer demand.
The same is true across retail, leisure, social care and many seasonal industries.
What many people forget
Zero-hours contracts don’t only benefit employers.
Many employees actively choose them.
Students.
Parents.
Carers.
People approaching retirement.
Individuals working multiple jobs.
For many, flexibility is the very reason they accepted the role in the first place. Government figures have indicated that around 72% of workers on zero-hours contracts report that the arrangement suits them.
That’s why I don’t think the conversation should be framed as employers versus employees.
It’s much more nuanced than that.
The challenge for businesses
Business groups have warned that the reforms could increase employment costs, particularly where employers will be required to compensate workers for cancelled shifts or offer guaranteed hours after consistent working patterns emerge. Recent Government impact assessments estimate that the annual cost to employers could range from hundreds of millions to almost £3 billion, depending on the final design of the rules.
For businesses already facing rising wage costs, National Insurance increases and ongoing economic uncertainty, these reforms will undoubtedly require careful planning.
However, they may also encourage organisations to improve workforce planning, scheduling and forecasting—changes that could ultimately benefit both employers and employees.
My perspective
Personally, I don’t think the question is whether these reforms are good or bad.
I think the question is whether they will achieve the balance they are trying to create.
Workers deserve security.
Businesses need flexibility.
Neither objective should exist at the expense of the other.
The employers who are likely to succeed under these reforms won’t necessarily be those with the biggest HR teams.
They’ll be the ones who understand their workforce, plan ahead, communicate openly and use flexibility responsibly.
Employment law should encourage good employment practices.
It shouldn’t make it harder for responsible businesses to operate.
As HR professionals, our role isn’t simply to explain new legislation.
It’s to help organisations find practical ways to comply while continuing to thrive.
And perhaps that’s the real opportunity these reforms present—not just better compliance, but better workforce planning, stronger employee relationships and more sustainable businesses.